To judge by the testimony submitted, Senate Bill 1345, calling for holders of leases of state lands to be compensated if any acreage is withdrawn, was one of the less controversial measures taken up by the 2009 Legislature. Only the Department of Land and Natural Resources voiced opposition to the bill in hearings by several committees of the House and Senate. All the other testimony – all of it from ranchers and cattlemen’s groups – was strongly in support.

Yet once the bill was sent to Governor Linda Lingle, SB 1345 suddenly generated fierce interest among environmental and conservation groups, who worry it could set a bad precedent and, what’s more, undermine the state’s ability to exercise responsible stewardship over public lands.

The bill calls for the state to compensate lessees for the “loss of reasonably anticipated income associated with the withdrawn leased land,” to reimburse lessees “for any insurance costs associated with the withdrawn” land, and, at the lessee’s request, to extend the lease for “not more than the number of years remaining in the original lease.”

What prompted the bill was the dissatisfaction of four ranchers with terms under which conservation easements were placed over some 6,500 acres of high-altitude Mauna Kea lands that had been included in their leases. The easements are called for in a 1999 agreement involving state and federal agencies that sets forth mitigation measures to offset the loss of habitat for the endangered palila (Loxioides bailleui) caused by the rerouting of the cross-island Saddle Road.